Greatest Scientists of all Time

[Humes fork]

If I had to pick one, it would be Charles Darwin. More than anyone else, he changed what it meant to be human. Before him, people thought humans had an elevated position in the scheme of life, either as created in the image of God, or the superior form of life (Aristotle). Darwin changed all that. I think only the discovery of extraterrestial life would equal what he discovered in terms of what it means to be human.

 

[Westwall]

If I had to pick one, it would be Charles Darwin. More than anyone else, he changed what it meant to be human. Before him, people thought humans had an elevated position in the scheme of life, either as created in the image of God, or the superior form of life (Aristotle). Darwin changed all that. I think only the discovery of extraterrestial life would equal what he discovered in terms of what it means to be human.

Look up Alfred Wallace and the Wallace line.

 

[roger]

I heard it put this way by a biographer of Newton, and I have to agree: Can you imagine being person X? For example, he opined that he could imagine being Einstein. While he happily admits that Einstein is a lot smarter than him, one can sort of 'project' how it would be to be Einstein. The same with people like Darwin. But Newton? He is just at another level entirely - Newton is not me x2, or x8, or xanything. Sure, I could imagine, maybe, getting his results in optics. But then to invent the Calculus, figure out the laws of motion, resolve fundamental issues about gravity and the motion of the planets, and then knock off the Principia in my spare time? Never. Humans aren't capable of such things.

And, of course, that was only a small part of his output, as others have mentioned. He did tons of stuff in alchemy (to no end, of course), wrote something like 20 books worth of history and biblical scholarship, was in politics, became master of the Mint, led the Royal society for years, etc. I'd be friggin proud of myself if I made dogcatcher one day.

eta: another way to put it. Suppose Newton had only did his optics work, or only mechanics, or what have you, we'd still be putting him on this list.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

But then to invent the Calculus

Arguably, he plagiarized the then-obscure Leibniz.

 

[MG1962]

I heard it put this way by a biographer of Newton, and I have to agree: Can you imagine being person X? For example, he opined that he could imagine being Einstein. While he happily admits that Einstein is a lot smarter than him, one can sort of 'project' how it would be to be Einstein. The same with people like Darwin. But Newton? He is just at another level entirely - Newton is not me x2, or x8, or xanything. Sure, I could imagine, maybe, getting his results in optics. But then to invent the Calculus, figure out the laws of motion, resolve fundamental issues about gravity and the motion of the planets, and then knock off the Principia in my spare time? Never. Humans aren't capable of such things.

And, of course, that was only a small part of his output, as others have mentioned. He did tons of stuff in alchemy (to no end, of course), wrote something like 20 books worth of history and biblical scholarship, was in politics, became master of the Mint, led the Royal society for years, etc. I'd be friggin proud of myself if I made dogcatcher one day.

eta: another way to put it. Suppose Newton had only did his optics work, or only mechanics, or what have you, we'd still be putting him on this list.

I have read a few bios of people from that era and the work ethic of some is amazing. I wonder sometimes if this manic energy is somehow related to intelligence

 

[randman]

Newton shows what a highly intelligent, motivated and open mind with time and funds can achieve. One wonders if he would do as well today as he would be taught that most of what he studied is incompatible with other things he studied and that reason cannot equally be applied to theology, alchemy, philosophy, math, and science and perhaps even what could be termed occult studies.

He came from an Intelligent Design perspective and didn't really limit himself.

Don't know much about alchemy except it's discredited but he spent a whole lot of time on it, more than on what we think of as conventional science. It'd be interesting if his deep affair with alchemy actually helped provide insight into science. Wouldn't be surprised if that were the case even if alchemy is hooey.

 

[lionking]

When I was younger I always considered Einstein to be superior to Newton because Newton's discoveries were relatively easy to comprehend. It was only when I read more about Newton and his times that I understood that it was a no contest.

 

[roger]

Arguably, he plagiarized the then-obscure Leibniz.

Yes, if the Calculus was his only claim to fame he perhaps wouldn't make the list. Nonetheless, he still did a lot in mathematics besides that.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Yes, if the Calculus was his only claim to fame he perhaps wouldn't make the list. Nonetheless, he still did a lot in mathematics besides that.

Yeah, I was just questioning the claim that he invented calculus.

I do however have some other objections to the line of reasoning you provided - too tired to lay it out right now however.

 

[joesixpack]

I do however have some other objections to the line of reasoning you provided - too tired to lay it out right now however.

And there's no room in the margin to write it either.

 

[Humes fork]

Look up Alfred Wallace and the Wallace line.

Fair enough, but Darwin actually made it famous (and he did reach the conclusion, if separately from Wallace).

If Wallace had been famously associated with evolution, what would the creationists call us then? Wallacists? Wallacians?